I am sure that this has been discussed several times here, but I did the search and didn’t fine what I am looking for.

I was wandering which English shotgun companies had the best reputation for making high-end shotguns. Let’s say pre-WW2.

I would think that H&H, Purdey, and Boss would be toward, or at the top, but where do you go from there?

Buck2

You'll probably need to narrow the field by the mechanics @ Birmingham or London, then further narrow the lot by A&D Body Action or Sidelock, etc.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

I would add "David McKay Brown"

Yeah, then add Rigby for their unique offerings and different founding location of Dublin, Ireland.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Send a pm to Rocketman. He has worked out a brand name, condition and quality or grade algorithm. At the top there are three to five makers. Then each lower name maker is slotted into it with grades and condition of the gun to help determine market value. Very neat way to give a buyer perspective.

To be honest, most gun makers were capable of producing as high a grade gun as their clients were willing to pay for. A few tried to only produce the top grades if possible. Most sold lower grades to keep the doors open, even if they just finished or shot and regulated them before putting their names on them. When in doubt buy the gun not the name or as one friend says buy the action. Everything else can be made right if the action is good. Worn, sorry guns, with actions which are about done should not be bought according to him.

Rocketman's data separates the vintage makers by the relative value their wares bring today, which probably answers the OP's question as well as anything as he asks about "reputation"

The top category consists of four makers, Boss, Woodward, Purdey and H &H.

The next group consists of Westley Richards, Dickson, Rigby, Grant, Beesley, Powell, Atkin, Churchill, Henry, Lancaster, Evans, Watson, Wilkes, Greener, Boswell, Gibbs and Lang.

After that it's the rest of the British trade.

According to his data, everything else being equal, if the British trade product is worth $4, the WR, Dickson etc group would be worth $6 and the Purdey group would be worth $8.

To be fair, I'd still break it down between A&D Body Action & Sidelock, etc.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Atkin, Grant are Best Gun makers

Oh and Woodward would be #4

You are correct Raimey. I neglected to mention Rocketman's data that I put here refers to the relative value of sidelocks from them. A 1st quality boxlock from any given maker is worth approximately the same as a border engraved sidelock.

But if we are ranking based solely on the value of a makers name, whether it's a sidelock or boxlock is immaterial.

I understand but for the moment I can't see not differentiating between A&D Action Body & Sidelock, etc. Excluding the WR droplock, how many sidelocks did they peddle? If the peddled few sidelocks, does that prohibit them from being a Best Maker even if they developed the basic platform for British Gun Trade?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

This fits what I was looking for. I was thinking on the same lines, but didn't know if there were others that ranked up there with the top 3 or 4.

Buck2

Buck,
Good thing you asked for "companies" and not the absolute best company, as that thread could go on forever!
Karl

Yeah I know, but the fat lady hasn't sung on this one yet.

Buck2

I think the issue is not what they made specifically, but the esteem with which the brand name is currently held. So it's not a discussion directly on best guns or not, but the value the brand has on similar products.

Many could make a Best gun, regardless of how we might define it today. But that wasn't the question. At least I didn't read it that way. The question is whose brand name is most highly valued (although the OP didn't phrase it that way).

Brand value is an entirely different subject than the quality of product. Over time, the quality of product is just one factor that contributes to brand value.

Did Rocketman's chart address brand value?
Karl

"I was wandering which English shotgun companies had the best reputation for making high-end shotguns. Let’s say pre-WW2."

All right Canvas-Back, we'll move forward with your interpretation.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

It specifically addresses brand value.

Thanks, I find that more useful.
Karl

Where is Rocketman's chart? I'm "in the market" and would like to see how some things I've been looking at stack up.

"The next group consists of Westley Richards, Dickson, Rigby, Grant, Beesley, Powell, Atkin, Churchill, Henry, Lancaster, Evans, Watson, Wilkes, Greener, Boswell, Gibbs and Lang. "

There is a HUGE spread in perceived quality (brand value) between these makers. Many of them didn't even make the guns they sold. SO who should get credit for the guns... the retailer or the actual maker?

I would add A.A. Brown, T. White, Anderson, McKay-Brown as providers of best class guns.

Rocketman's charts can be obtained by PM to Rocketman, if he so chooses to distribute them. He does the work.

Chukarman, your emphasis on "HUGE" suggests you know something that thousands of actual buyers of these guns don't.

Which may be true. I'm not arguing either way. However, Rocketman's charts are based on actual sales data, not speculation. The sales data quantifies a broad selection of opinion. So it's a good measure of how the market values the brand name.

The OP also specifically said pre WWII.

Perhaps this will help those unfamiliar with the charts.

There are three criteria. Original Quality. Current Condition. Brand Value.

Each of these are distinct yet key to our evaluation of a gun and more importantly to those in the market to buy or sell, what the dollar value for a particular gun might be in the marketplace. Very often, people confuse or conflate brand value with original quality.

As Canvasback states Rocketman’s system rates guns on brand value, quality of build, and condition based on market analysis he has done.

Having tried it against the market I have experienced it seems to hold water fairly well.

I believe his system is a good gauge for lack of any better. I am not aware of anyone else having created a similar system that is available.

This is correct, I was looking for the brand, or manufacture. Many made great "Best" type guns, but at very low volumes.

Buck2

Most people back then ordered guns, more precicsly picked a gunmaker, the same the way they picked their tailor; because their older relatives were clients, or because of proximity and other reasons that have no relation to today's collector perceptions. Collecting or hoarding guns was unknown, as was gun investing.

A read through magazines of the time is useful for what happened back then. A read through auction results shows what happens now.

While many companies did not make the guns they sold, intelligent commissioning of outworkers and makers to the trade produced very high quality guns indeed.
Brand value has to do with resale or bragging rights, while original quality and high condition will yield more value per dollar invested, in a gun that you actually use and enjoy. IMHO.

Check out guns on pegs. They have a pick if money was no object what gun would you buy.
William Evans/and Bisley. Made the top 10. You may be surprised.

Exactly!!!!

To the first point - my point is simple... which would YOU rather have -- an Atkin spring opener SLE or Powell or Gibbs or Boswell? There is a very wide spread in brand value between the makers in the "Second Tier".

I would not argue your second point - original quality is what it is regardless of the name engraved on the gun.

Chukarman, that wasn’t the question. I wasn’t trying to express my desires. Just simply answer the OP’s question as well as I could.

And within reasonable variances that allow Rocketman to make a sensible grouping, those names have similar values on the open market. Not my opinion.

Ferrari & Lamborghini also make tractors.
My point being.
I have seen many workaday examples of guns from the second tier makers.
Living in the British colonies I suppose a man would see more of that type of thing.
Not a lot of money on the land & a huge market to be met for pest clearing.

Then other brands that are second tier (& rightfully so) have made some very fine sporting guns for those in the colonies who have money & pursued sport such as live pigeon. Skimin & Wood is one such company.
O.M

And both Purdey and Holland have sold (under their own names) B'Ham made boxlocks of varying quality. Boss sold medium quality boxlocks carrying Robertson's name, never the BOSS name.

To me, at least, brand value is B.S., others set great store on it...

Tell that to IBM, Nike, Apple or those who invest in those companies or buy their products.

Branding isn’t BS, it’s real and has a huge impact in the marketplace and thus the value to the owner of the brand. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand how markets work.

Why do you think original Parker A grades or Fox D grades sell for the prices they sell for?

Branding makes up for lack of knowledge, what some call connoisseurship, since it offers a security of sorts to the average buyer.

Few average buyers can identify a Savile Row suit, but most would spot an Armani because of the brand. Savvy investors buy Armani shares, then order Savile Row suits.

Anything like that happen in guns? From an English craftsman, a very well known one, I heard that an American biotechnology investor retained the best specialists to build him a collection of best guns. Unbranded. Most probably he got his money's worth way more than a brand buyer would.

The OP asked for pre WW 2 makers. Still, some have proposed post WW 2 makers.

Owning a make of an English gun doesn't make it one of the best English shotgun companies.

Branding is simply a shortcut for consumers to understand the attributes the brand stands for. Some are quite willing to pay lots for the shortcut. Others, who usually don’t need the short cut because of knowledge, won’t pay the brand premium.

Shotgunlover gets it. A few others don’t, or they want to talk about their opinion of specific brands or some subject other than the OP’s question.

He didn’t ask who made the best gun or what are the attributes of a best gun or whether certain makers could make best guns or even if best gun makers made lower quality guns.

He asked for a ranking of the top pre WWII English makers by reputation. Reputation ( brand value) can be quantitatively measured by the premium paid for the name. Easy peasy.

Edwinson Green & Son might be added to the lower end of the listing. High grade engraved boxlocks.

Yeah, yeah, as a marketing guy I know this well. I am talking about 'brand value' in this narrow frame of reference.

Pretty much the same thing that you are saying here...

Strictly speaking, not ENGLISH, Scots. Dickson, Harkom, Martin, et. al. are Scottish companies, not English. They are usually grouped un "British" gunmakers.

Also, Established 1967.

Again, the OP asked for makers before WW2.

Interesting thread. Canvas has done a magnificent job explaining my charts. I sincerely appreciate his input.

I'll just add a few thoughts. As a background, I started this project some 20 years ago because I couldn't make sense of the double gun market. I, like most supposed that quality and brand name were inseparable. It was a long and hard won learning to find this is just not so. It was jarring to my belief system to learn that any company could get out a best work gun via out-workers; within the trade "best work" was well known and understood. "Best work" had it's price, whether the work was done by in-workers or out-workers. The real trick with best work guns (or any other trade best work product) was to attract the commissions rather than the skill to deliver. It was also a bit of a surprise to discover that guns were actually made by flesh and blood workmen in manufacturies, as opposed to elves in forest cottages.

OK, so lets look at some examples. Lets take three best work SLE's in pristine condition (say the best one or two condition gun(s) of 100 "identical" examples): H&H Royal @ $40,000 (BV1-OQ1-CC1), Lang @ $30,000 (BV2-OQ1-CC1), or Midland @ $20,000 (BV3-OQ1-CC1). Which would you buy? OQ1 says they are all of the same Original Quality and CC1 says they are all in near new condition. The decision point is maker's name.

Same three guns but in differing Current Condition: $21,000 H&H Royal with significent use (BV1-OQ1-CC3), $21,000 Lang with limited use (slight finish wear, little shooting) (BV2-OQ1-CC2), or $20,000 Midland in pristine condition (BV3-OQ1-CC1). Your decision point is now current condition. Which?

Now, $6,200 H&H best work SLE in condition described as, "Shootable but needs expensive repairs or restored with stock and barrels replaced" (BV1-OQ1-CC7), $6,200 Lang "B" grade SLE with condition described as, "Heavy use, but no abuse" (BV2-OQ3-CC4), or $6,000 Midland best work boxlock ejector in pristine condition (BV3-OQ5-CC1). Now your decision point is a combination of Original Quality (including BLE and SLE) and Current Condition. Which?

Yes, it looks like a bit of a game, but follow the logic and I think you will find it useful.

Questions?

DDA

Rocketman,
I really appreciate the explaination which adds more meaning to your previous charts.
Karl

So DDA, did the same mechanic who turned out the Pristine Midland also contribute effort to the H&H Royal?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, the short answer is no, or at least not after H&H open up their own factory. Before that, H&H bought in guns from various makers. During this period, they, like William Evans, provided the strict quality control.

DDA

Just wondering since you note "Out-Workers" in one paragraph. So when was the QA/QC move by H&H?

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Is anyone familiar with Benjamin Norman of Framlingham to offer a place in this discussion? I have a 1888 hammergun of his making that looks to be quite well made.

I'm curious how one ranks gunmakers. Not that it will matter much to me, but where is Greener in this ladder of 19th and early 20th century gun makers? I ask because I'm looking at one with an eye to purchase, though whether high or low ranking, my opinion on this particular gun won't change.

I'm also asking because I can't send Rocketman a PM - Rocket, your inbox is full... But I would like to hear more about your charts.

Brent,

Greener is a Brand Value of 2 (BV2). RM spreadsheet provides a guide to determine the used gun cost based on his research of auction prices. As you can see from his post above, the price is based on the BV, Original Quality (OQ), and Current Condition (CC).

Ken

In the specific instance I'm considering, I know the original price of the gun and the current conditions, so I think I could figure it out, but I don't have the charts.

In my case, I am mostly just curious. I'll buy the gun (or not) based on what it is worth to me, which may be far above or below market value, but I don't really know what market value is, and I'm curious.

Rocketman, if you share those charts with others, I would greatly appreciate a copy of them.

Brent,
I addition to seeing ads on the website for prices actually sold, I've used the Blue Book for grading and prices that are supposedly being realised across the nation.
Karl

Gents, I have noticed any time this question comes up, W.&C. Scott & Son is hardly ever mentioned even though they built on an average 2000 handmade doubles PER Year from 1870 to 1935,and only a fraction of them had Scott's name applied to them, meaning they were built for every other maker in England. If you doubt their level of craftsmanship compares to the Big Four, check out the Imperial Premier that Champlin has for sale. Just one man's opinion. Sandlapper

From reading Dig Hadoke I believe that H&H continued to order guns from outside even after their factory opened. This was mainly in the lower grades, I think.

Most (Boss possible exception) gunmakers ordered in lower grade guns. Likewise, most used the services of outworkers as needed. All/most had a master gunmaker somewhere in the operation and he would know other makers with best work talent. A best work gun, no matter the source(s) will always be a best work of OQ1.

DDA

Very true and the same can be said for Midland. It was a trade with a spiderweb of interconnections. Quality cost money and makers knew how to get the required quality out the door with the highest margin.

DDA

Boss made 'best guns only'. The lower grade guns that they retailed were labeled 'Robertson'. Before (and after) taking charge at Boss, Robertson was himself an outworker. I've seen a subgauge Atkin SLE 20 that was actioned by Robertson, identical to a Boss of that period and first sold in 1897, after Ronbertson had been running Boss for 5 years (I think he took over in 1892?).

Always judge the gun, not the name.

There are some very fine guns with little known names, just as there are some quite 'ordinary' grade guns with 'top names' on them.

Quality is not the same as (monetary) value; Having a name such as Purdey, H&H, or Churchill on a boxlock will enhance value, but it will most likely have been made in Birmingham, and an identical quality gun from the same maker with a Birmingham name will cost less.

Im with you sandlapper. W&C Scott are right up there with the best and underrated. And William Powell who was sometimes referred to as the Purdey of the North. My own collection is largely built around Thomas Horsley who built guns as good as anything in London or Birmingham, but in one man's lifetime only up to about 1890.